Monday, 24 November 2014

Imagine, if you would, an encounter occurring which has no
relevance to the scenario in which it occurs. It adds no verisimilitude, adds
no flavour to the game milieu, and has no impact or potential for impact on
future events. Moreover, the encounter is neither fun nor challenging in and of
itself. It is a complete waste of time.

Game systems can encourage elements of this kind of
encounter. For instance, in games where resources are intended to “reset” after
each encounter, it is easy enough to remove the potential for impact on future
events.

A hypothetical game system that takes two hours to resolve a chance
glimpse of a deer in the woods would make what is otherwise five seconds of
description a chore that removes all fun. If a system “balanced” encounters so
that the PCs were expected to win, and turned encounters into formula combats
that took hours to resolve, a chance encounter with an ogre (for example) could
easily be removed of its potential fun and challenge.

An adventure writer can also encourage elements of this type
of encounter. “No matter what the PCs do, X will occur….” and “If the PCs kill
X, assume that an identical X takes its place….” certainly reduce the potential
for impact, if the GM actually follows those suggestions.

Yet, few and far between are those encounters which are
completely meaningless, unless the system or the GM makes a clear distinction
between “relevant” and “irrelevant” encounters. If this is the case, yes, you
can make any encounter irrelevant. Doing so does not improve game play IMHO and
IME. Forcing the players to determine the relevance of encounters to their own
goals – or allowing them to create that relevance themselves! – is, to
me, an important aspect of game play.

Crappy encounters do exist. If we take the elements of verisimilitude,
flavour, potential for impact, challenge, and intrinsic fun, we can see that
the more of these elements an encounter has, the better an encounter it will
be. Consequently, the fewer it has, the crappier it will be.

IMHO and IME, adhering to an encounter template or a “plot”
to which all encounters must conform is the most common way to create crappy
encounters. YMMY, and if it does, party on! Never throw away something
that works for you because some jackhole on the internet has a different idea,
or different experiences. “Even if that jackhole is you?” Friend, especially
if that jackhole is me. What works for me might not work for you. And vice
versa.

Here’s the second biggest source of crappy encounters (IMHO
& IME): Lack of planning. In order to have meaning, an encounter must both
have impact on the setting and be able to allow the players to have impact.
That means that there has to be some structure to hang the encounter on, and
that there has to be enough leeway in that structure that the PCs can change it
through their actions.

So long as those conditions exist, no encounter is truly
meaningless. And your chance of having a crappy encounter go down considerably.

Sunday, 23 November 2014

How odd that there are people still who seem to believe that I am preaching the 'one true way.' Feel free to agree with me and expand on what I've written. Most every comment like this highlights the best parts of my post, adds things I never thought of, deliberates over the nuance of a particular ideal and straightens out my thinking.Perhaps it is the title of the blog - the apparent insistence that I know the path the reader must tread, that I am demanding that the reader tread it and that if the reader refuses, the reader is an idiot or a fool.Rumson, however, does not confirm the thesis. He proposes an alternative thesis ... but he doesn't ask if Holbrook agrees. He makes it clear: "This is so. There is no room for argument." That's because Rumson isn't proposing a thesis ... which is, after all, the entire point of Logan's play. Rumson knows. That's why, when Holbrook answers that he doesn't agree, Rumson doesn't care. He gets to the root of it. Holbrook doesn't agree because Holbrook doesn't understand.[T]here IS a path. One that we are walking upon together, arguing, challenging one another, pointing out details along the route. Don't piggy-back on my blog and offer an alternative method for 'how you do it.' I am writing here about how I do it. Either address my method, or go write your idea on your blog.I don't care that the reader agrees. The response, "I agree with some of what Alexis writes, but not all of it," is pure Holbrook. I am not Holbrook. I am Rumson. Rumson knows.I don't care that the reader agrees. Feel free to agree with me and expand on what I've written. If you want to disagree with me, fine. Do so. I better see a source or a credibly prescient example from your personal experience, and that example better be specific, detailed and ungeneralized. It better be in the first three sentences, too.[T]here IS a path. One that we are walking upon together, arguing, challenging one another, pointing out details along the route. It better be in the first three sentences.I am Rumson. Rumson knows.How odd that there are people still who seem to believe that I am preaching the 'one true way.' Sources: http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/2014/03/rumson.html; http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-one-true-tao.html; https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3871409676946408069&postID=7569953836317449934&isPopup=true - this last is the comments form for Alexis' [Rumson's] blog, which demands that you feel free to agree with him, or, if not, present a cogent, detailed, and well-referenced argument in three sentences. Rumson is right in Logan's play because the author deems that this is the case, and unless you assume that you have a special relationship with the "author" of reality, one should not assume that they are right simply on the basis of their pronouncements. Para 3, above, is almost the definition of "one true way", and the insistence of Alexis that he is Rumson (Rumson knows) should make things clear. There is a reason people believe Alexis is preaching "one true way". But it is not clear to Alexis.

Friday, 14 November 2014

We often make predictions, but how often do we go back to
see how accurate they were? Alexis did me a solid this morning by reminding me
of this blog post that I responded to way back in 2012. I am pretty sure that wasn’t Alexis’
intention, but let’s treat it as if it were.

My base prediction was:

It
wasn’t the fault of fans that a toxic atmosphere was created, nor is it the
fault of fans that 4e wasn’t well-received. Nor will the success or failure of
D&D Next be due to anything other than the success or failure of WotC to
put out a good product, market that product well, and undo to whatever extent
they are able the ill-will their handling of the 4e release created.

And
they have definitely taken some steps in the right direction, although I think
that the NDAs for the beta playtest are a really bad idea (not required by most
recent rpgs, including Pathfinder and Dungeon Crawl Classics, despite Mike
Mearls’ claim to the contrary), and I don’t think 5e will fly without the OGL.

The
systems that are doing well right now have the right combination of “good
system + goodwill”, and I don’t think Hasbro is going to allow WotC the leeway
needed to recreate the goodwill that was seen with the advent of 3e.

The rest of the
discussion is actually, I think, worth reading. You will notice quite a bit of “IMHO”
and “I think”, and this is largely because, as is obvious, no one can really be
so sure what the future holds!

(1) The
success or failure of D&D Next (now 5e) is the result of a combination of
the product and of the goodwill WotC can generate.

If comments from Mike
Mearls are anything to go by, 5e is a real success, and Hasbro is happy that
target numbers have been reached. I doubt that anyone is going to claim that
this is the result of “toxic fans” or a lack of good will towards WotC. In
fact, between the time that I wrote my responses in the blog post and the
release of 5e, WotC went out of its way to address the ill will generated with
the 4e release strategy.

It is of interest to me
that Mike Mearls continues to hedge in relation to the OGL, or what licensing
5e will eventually have. This suggests rather strongly that, despite 5e
materials being created right now under the OGL, the system will have a
different licensing arrangement. A return to the OGL would have been announced
early, because it would generate interest and goodwill. On the other hand, by deferring the question,
WotC can hope to build up enough interest and goodwill related to the system
itself that, whatever the eventual licensing, people will be too invested to
quit.

And that was, AFAICT,
the initial scheme: Play it for a year,
and then we’ll tell you the details about the licensing. Maybe.

(2) The NDA
was a bone-headed move.

The NDA did was prevent
prolific and prominent bloggers from discussing D&D Next explicitly. It was
violated almost immediately, and anyone who wanted them could easily obtain the
playtest materials.

But, in this case,
perhaps that was the point. By making these materials appear hard to obtain
(and that clandestinely), WotC may well have raised the interest in 5e in a way
that an open playtest would not have.

(3) Hasbro
will not allow the leeway needed to give 5e the goodwill seen with 3e’s
release.

The jury’s still out on
this. Certainly, that 5e is a better system than 3e or 4e has been touted
regularly on various blogs and forums. Equally certainly, renewing access to
early editions in PDF (and sometimes print) formats has generated a lot of
goodwill. There is certainly a sense that WotC is listening.

As an obvious corollary, if 5e is wildly successful, that will be
because of Wizards, not because of the fans. They will have produced and
marketed a good product, and overcome the ill-will generated around the release
of 4e. It will be an achievement.

Yes, I said that. So
far, WotC does seem to have managed that achievement. In part, I suspect, by
postponing the licensing announcements until player investment is heavy.

For 5e to be “D&D
Next” it needs to feel like coming home…like a game that DM’s can take ownership
of. It needs to not feel like a game you play only at the whims of WotC’s legal
department.

I still hold this to be
true. Whether or not DMs will feel that ownership once they discover the
licensing terms is a whole ‘nother matter.

Well, I already know my
opinions. Please “hijack” this blog by telling me what you think. I promise not to perma-ban anyone for not simply regurgitating my own thoughts!*

*And, yes, Alexis, that is me tweaking your nose. And no, I did not discover your blog post by searching from "searching for a name" on Google to stir up some controversy in order to maintain readership. Your blog is still on my reading list because, despite the many posts about how everyone else sucks, you do occasionally have very interesting things to say.

Monday, 10 November 2014

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain that the game is mastered by you and not by your players...you are the creator and final arbiter."

- Gary Gygax, Afterword from the 1st edition DMG

These words hold true for (nearly?) all role-playing games, not just Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Rest well, Gary. You are missed.

Have you seen Doctor Who`s season finale, Death in Heaven?If not, skip this post. If so, highlight to read:Don`t be so sure that Osgood is dead. Jump back to The Day of the Doctor, and you will note that Osgood frequently used an inhaler, and the lack of inhaler indicated her Zygon duplicate. Following the ratification of a treaty between humans and Zygons, why wouldn`t Osgood-Zygon be allowed to maintain a liaison post with U.N.I.T.?No inhaler. Not Osgood.Expect the character to return.

Sunday, 9 November 2014

My youngest child, at 8 years old, is now
dipping her feet into the icy waters of role-playing games. I have, therefore,
had the delightful task of re-writing the rules to match her interests and
willingness to undertake risk. In this game, character death is off the table.
She’s just not ready for it yet, although in a few years I hope to be able to
introduce her to “harder” games.

One of the fun things about writing
material that will never be used outside your own home – no restrictions on
what you can use! So hobbits are hobbits, instead of halflings. And – why not? –
there are fraggles exploring “Outer Space” in this game ala Uncle Traveling
Matt from Fraggle Rock. And I get to use a bunch of creatures from Luke Pearson’s Hildafolk books. Fun
stuff. Did I mention that she also watches Land of the Lost, and that Sleestaks
will be encountered?

It’s nice working for publication, but it
is also very cool working for your own enjoyment. In my home Dungeon
Crawl Classics campaign, I can easily use materials from MERP,
Gamma
World, and AD&D, but if I convert these materials, I cannot publish
the results. I have also been statting out creatures, characters, items,
patrons, and spells from Appendix N fiction (and have shared some of this work
here), but the Appendix N Cyclopedia I am working on will, ultimately, be for
my reference alone. Likewise the Doctor Who rpg I am working on –
stealing the best bits from FASA, Time
Lord, and Cubicle 7, but
ultimately for in-house use only.

I do this stuff because I love it. It’s
damn nice to be able to share with all of my children.

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

When people talk about “balanced encounters”, they may mean
one of several things – anything from creating encounters that are generally appropriate
for a dungeon level (as with early D&D) to ensuring that the PCs can win
every fight with an “appropriate” risk and expenditure of resources (as with
the base assumptions of 3e and 4e).

What underlies this, of course, is a simple question: If the
PCs fail, who is responsible?

Look back through forums focused on 3e, and you will
discover all sorts of complaints about the CR system. I have not been an aficionado of 4e, but I
imagine that similar observations related to that system’s encounter budgets
also occurred. The books, essentially, offer a way for encounters to be “balanced”;
if the PCs fail it is either because the books failed, or the DM didn’t follow
the guidelines.

The first time I encountered this was in 2e, where the DM
was encouraged to fudge in order to save the PCs. In 1e, there was certainly language
that suggested that the DM was allowed to do so; in 2e the
suggestion was that the DM should do so. 1e’s “balance” was
focused around campaign-length play and mechanisms that allowed the players to
estimate their risk. A prime example of this is that, in general, the deeper
one delves, the greater the treasures and the risks. This, of course, was not
absolute – PCs may encounter “Monster Level” 3 monsters on the 1st
level of the dungeon.

Moreover, while these tools were available, reading the
advice to players in the 1e Player’s Handbook, it is clear that
players should expect the DM to try to trick them into undertaking more risk than
expected. Long sloping passages that lead down to another level without being
noticed, chutes that do the same (but obviously!), and traps that cut off
retreat are to be expected.

In 1e, not only is managing risk the player’s job, but the DM
is expected
to make this difficult. Not impossibly so – the DM is not supposed to be a
jerkwad – but difficult enough to push the players into upping their game.

The modern obsession with balanced encounters starts with
the idea that it is the GM, not the players, who must find the balance point.
In a game where the GM forces the players to dance to his tune (and thus forces
encounters upon the players, ala 3e, 4e, or most “adventure paths”), it makes
sense that the GM has an increased responsibility to make those encounters “fair”.
Applied to all gaming, though, the idea is a nightmare. Every time you hear
that the GM has “made a mistake” and has to “correct an encounter” as the
reason for fudging, the idea that the GM should balance encounters is at its
heart.

I do not like games where the book, or the GM, is supposed to balance the encounters. I like games in which the GM is supposed to allow enough context to exist (which does not, by the way, mean that the context simply appears without being sought out by the PCs) to allow the players to generally balance the encounters. And which allows the players to be wrong.

Some players will "play it safe", while others will take great risks, courting disaster in order to have a chance for great rewards. That is, to me, part of the interest of the game.

Search This Blog

Follow by Email

Disclosure

This blog has now moved to the OneBookShelf affiliate system. So, if you follow a link from here to RPGNow or DriveTrhuRPG and then make a purchase within the next 15 days, 5% of the purchase price (minus gift certificates) will be credited to my account. It costs you nothing; you can consider it a tip. The link can be adjusted in your browser to remove the affiliate tag, if you so desire.